New England Journal of Medicine September 10, 2009

Ticagrelor versus Clopidogrel in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndromes

Lars Wallentin, Richard C. Becker, Andrzej Budaj, Christopher P. Cannon, Håkan Emanuelsson, Claes Held, Jay Horrow, Steen Husted, Stefan James, Hugo Katus, Kenneth W. Mahaffey, Benjamin M. Scirica, Allan Skene, Philippe Gabriel Steg, Robert F. Storey, Robert A. Harrington

Bottom Line

In patients with acute coronary syndromes, ticagrelor significantly reduced the composite rate of death from vascular causes, myocardial infarction, or stroke compared to clopidogrel, without a significant increase in overall major bleeding.

Key Findings

1. Ticagrelor significantly reduced the primary composite outcome of vascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke at 12 months compared to clopidogrel (9.8% vs. 11.7%; HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.77-0.92, P<0.001) [4.2.1].
2. Treatment with ticagrelor was associated with significant reductions in myocardial infarction (5.8% vs. 6.9%; P=0.005) and death from vascular causes (4.0% vs. 5.1%; P=0.001).
3. All-cause mortality was significantly lower in the ticagrelor group compared to the clopidogrel group (4.5% vs. 5.9%; HR 0.78, P<0.001).
4. There was no significant difference in the overall rate of major bleeding according to study criteria between the ticagrelor and clopidogrel groups (11.6% vs. 11.2%; P=0.43).
5. Ticagrelor was associated with a higher rate of non-CABG-related major bleeding (4.5% vs. 3.8%; P=0.03) and a higher incidence of dyspnea (13.8% vs. 7.8%; P<0.001).

Study Design

Design
RCT
Double-Blind
Sample
18,624
Patients
Duration
12 mo
Median
Setting
43 countries
Population Patients hospitalized for acute coronary syndromes (with or without ST-segment elevation) with an onset of symptoms within the previous 24 hours.
Intervention Ticagrelor (180 mg loading dose, followed by 90 mg twice daily)
Comparator Clopidogrel (300 to 600 mg loading dose, followed by 75 mg once daily)
Outcome Composite of death from vascular causes, myocardial infarction, or stroke at 12 months.

Study Limitations

The trial observed a regional interaction where North American patients derived less benefit from ticagrelor; this was subsequently hypothesized to be driven by concurrent use of high-dose maintenance aspirin in the United States.
The study compared ticagrelor against clopidogrel, but lacked an active comparator arm for prasugrel, leaving the head-to-head comparative efficacy of the two newer potent P2Y12 inhibitors unaddressed in this initial trial.
The twice-daily dosing regimen of ticagrelor may impact real-world medication adherence compared to the once-daily regimens of clopidogrel or prasugrel.
Higher incidences of dyspnea and ventricular pauses with ticagrelor occasionally led to treatment discontinuation, which could influence patient compliance and unblind subjects.

Clinical Significance

The PLATO trial represents a landmark paradigm shift in cardiovascular medicine. It definitively established that a reversibly binding, direct-acting P2Y12 inhibitor (ticagrelor) provides superior, rapid, and consistent platelet inhibition resulting in significant cardiovascular and all-cause mortality benefits over clopidogrel, all without increasing the risk of overall major bleeding. These findings transformed international cardiology guidelines, elevating ticagrelor to a preferred, first-line agent for dual antiplatelet therapy in acute coronary syndromes.

Historical Context

Prior to PLATO, dual antiplatelet therapy with aspirin and clopidogrel was the gold standard for acute coronary syndromes (ACS). However, clopidogrel's clinical utility was limited by its status as a prodrug requiring CYP2C19-dependent hepatic activation, causing delayed onset and highly variable platelet inhibition among patients. Prasugrel (TRITON-TIMI 38, 2007) had previously shown that greater potency reduced ischemic events, but with a significant penalty in major and fatal bleeding. Ticagrelor, a novel cyclopentyltriazolopyrimidine (CPTP), was developed as a non-thienopyridine, reversibly-binding direct antagonist to maximize ischemic benefit while maintaining an acceptable safety profile.

Guided Discussion

High-yield insights from every perspective

Med Student
Medical Student

Why does ticagrelor have a faster onset of action and less interpatient variability compared to clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes?

Key Response

Clopidogrel is a prodrug that requires two-step hepatic bioactivation by CYP450 enzymes (specifically CYP2C19), leading to delayed onset and variable response due to genetic polymorphisms. Ticagrelor is an active drug that reversibly binds the P2Y12 receptor directly, resulting in faster and more consistent platelet inhibition.

Resident
Resident

A patient with a STEMI is started on ticagrelor and develops dyspnea on day 2. How should you approach this adverse effect, and what is its proposed mechanism?

Key Response

Dyspnea is a known side effect of ticagrelor, affecting up to 15 percent of patients in the PLATO trial. It is thought to be mediated by the inhibition of adenosine reuptake (ENT-1 inhibition) rather than heart failure or bronchospasm. Management involves ruling out other causes (like pulmonary edema or ischemia) and providing reassurance, as it is often mild, transient, and does not typically require drug discontinuation.

Fellow
Fellow

The PLATO trial demonstrated an increase in non-CABG related major bleeding with ticagrelor, but no difference in overall major bleeding. How does ticagrelor's reversibility influence the management of a patient needing urgent CABG compared to clopidogrel?

Key Response

Because ticagrelor reversibly binds the P2Y12 receptor and has a shorter half-life, platelet function recovers faster than with clopidogrel (which binds irreversibly). Consequently, bridging and washout strategies differ; guidelines recommend holding ticagrelor for a shorter duration (3-5 days) before elective or urgent surgery compared to clopidogrel (5-7 days), making it an attractive option for patients who may require surgical revascularization after angiography.

Attending
Attending

A notable regional anomaly in the PLATO trial showed a lack of benefit for ticagrelor in the North American cohort. What clinical practice difference explained this interaction, and how does it alter your prescribing habits?

Key Response

The loss of ticagrelor's efficacy in the North American cohort was linked to the concurrent use of high-dose aspirin (e.g., 325 mg daily), which is historically more common in the US. High-dose aspirin may attenuate ticagrelor's benefits by increasing bleeding risk or through complex pharmacodynamic interactions. Consequently, attendings must ensure patients on ticagrelor are prescribed only low-dose maintenance aspirin (81 mg).

Scholarly Review

Critical appraisal through the lens of expert reviewers and guideline development

PhD
PhD

The PLATO trial utilized a composite primary efficacy endpoint alongside a hierarchical testing sequence. How does the inclusion of softer endpoints within a composite affect the power of the study, and what are the statistical implications of the North American subgroup interaction?

Key Response

Composite endpoints increase event rates, thereby increasing statistical power and reducing required sample size, but treatment effects can be driven predominantly by less severe components. The North American subgroup interaction highlights the risks of multiplicity and regional heterogeneity in global mega-trials; while statistically significant (p=0.045 for interaction), post-hoc analyses were required to build the biological plausibility of the aspirin dose effect, showcasing the tension between overall trial power and subgroup validity.

Journal Editor
Journal Editor

As a reviewer, how do you evaluate the open-label nature of the aspirin dosing in the PLATO trial, and does the post-hoc identification of the aspirin interaction threaten the study's overall external validity?

Key Response

The lack of randomization or stratification for maintenance aspirin dosing introduces significant confounding. Since the high-dose aspirin interaction was identified post-hoc to explain the North American anomaly, a rigorous reviewer would flag this as a potential data-dredging exercise. It limits the external validity because the true causal nature of the aspirin interaction cannot be definitively proven without a prospective, randomized factorial design.

Guideline Committee
Guideline Committee

Based on the mortality benefit seen in PLATO, how do current ACC/AHA and ESC guidelines prioritize P2Y12 inhibitors for patients presenting with Acute Coronary Syndromes undergoing PCI?

Key Response

The PLATO trial provided pivotal evidence for current guidelines. Both the ACC/AHA and ESC guidelines give a strong Class I recommendation to use newer, more potent P2Y12 inhibitors (ticagrelor or prasugrel) over clopidogrel for patients with ACS due to the significant reduction in ischemic events without a prohibitive increase in life-threatening bleeding. The guidelines explicitly recommend ticagrelor over clopidogrel in ACS unless there is a specific contraindication, while specifically noting the requirement to keep maintenance aspirin doses below 100 mg based on the PLATO North American subgroup analysis.

Clinical Landscape

Noteworthy Related Trials

2001

CURE Trial

n = 12,562 · NEJM

Tested

Clopidogrel plus aspirin

Population

Patients with acute coronary syndromes without ST-segment elevation

Comparator

Placebo plus aspirin

Endpoint

CV death, nonfatal MI, or stroke

Key result: The addition of clopidogrel to aspirin significantly reduced the risk of major cardiovascular events in patients with NSTE-ACS.
2007

TRITON-TIMI 38

n = 13,608 · NEJM

Tested

Prasugrel

Population

ACS patients with scheduled PCI

Comparator

Clopidogrel

Endpoint

CV death, nonfatal MI, or nonfatal stroke

Key result: Prasugrel significantly reduced rates of ischemic events compared to clopidogrel but increased the risk of major bleeding.
2019

ISAR-REACT 5

n = 4,018 · NEJM

Tested

Ticagrelor

Population

Patients with acute coronary syndromes intended for invasive evaluation

Comparator

Prasugrel

Endpoint

Death, MI, or stroke at 1 year

Key result: Prasugrel was superior to ticagrelor in reducing the composite ischemic endpoint without significantly increasing major bleeding.

Tailored to your role

Want this tailored to you?

Add your specialty or training stage to get role-specific takeaways and more questions.

Personalize this analysis